Do the rights recognized in the Constitution belong to 'the people'? (Meaning everyone within the jurisdiction of the U.S.) Or does the phrase 'the people' mean 'citizens only'?

The word 'citizen' is used in the Constitution 11 times in the original Articles and Bill of Rights, another 11 times in Amendments passed after the adoption of the Constitution. And when the word is used, it is in the context of a specific right exclusive to citizenship (like voting), or in describing the qualifications to hold a federal elective office. And for over a century, it has been the law of the land that the provisions of the Due Process Clauses of the Vth and XIVth Amendments were universal, with the SCOTUS stating as recently as 2001 ""the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." [Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)]

So why, in this domestic drone debate, is the focus on due process for 'citizens' only?

I think this is an important point, because citizenship is an abstract construct. Citizenship can be revoked, along with the rights and privileges thereto. But the rights recognized by the Constitution are natural rights that exist simply because of our humanity. Rights associated with "personhood" cannot be so loosely unbound from their holder. Thus I think the current furor over killing 'citizens' completely misses the point.

We the people OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I think it only applies to citizens. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Just answering the question.

I thought it was odd that that discussion was so specific to citizens of the US.Once Holder say "no", Paul backed off and said everything was ok.

So we're good with drone attacks on people with green cards (as tifosi alluded to)?That's disturbing.

I think this is possibly the most serious international tension issue in the world right now. If he actually has the guts to do it this will get bloody and possibly rather radioactive. Boom goes a bomb or two over there and UP UP UP go manufacturing prices on tons of goods. That would be just great for a world economy already on the brink.

Kim Jong Un is a freaking clown. Both China and Russia don't mind some posturing, but if the little sh*t starts any shenanigans they will quickly abandon him and he can kiss his sorry regime goodbye in a matter of weeks.

By giving the NRA sponsorship of a major NASCAR race, NASCAR has crossed a line – you have decided to put yourself in the middle of a political debate, and you have taken a side that stands in opposition to the wishes of so many Newtown families who support common sense gun reform.

So a liberal Connecticut politician wants NASCAR to distance itself from guns in the sake of “common sense” gun reform. For a race in Texas. Yeah, good luck with that.

Do the rights recognized in the Constitution belong to 'the people'? (Meaning everyone within the jurisdiction of the U.S.) Or does the phrase 'the people' mean 'citizens only'?

The word 'citizen' is used in the Constitution 11 times in the original Articles and Bill of Rights, another 11 times in Amendments passed after the adoption of the Constitution. And when the word is used, it is in the context of a specific right exclusive to citizenship (like voting), or in describing the qualifications to hold a federal elective office. And for over a century, it has been the law of the land that the provisions of the Due Process Clauses of the Vth and XIVth Amendments were universal, with the SCOTUS stating as recently as 2001 ""the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." [Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)]

So why, in this domestic drone debate, is the focus on due process for 'citizens' only?

I think this is an important point, because citizenship is an abstract construct. Citizenship can be revoked, along with the rights and privileges thereto. But the rights recognized by the Constitution are natural rights that exist simply because of our humanity. Rights associated with "personhood" cannot be so loosely unbound from their holder. Thus I think the current furor over killing 'citizens' completely misses the point.

We the people OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I think it only applies to citizens. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Just answering the question.

All that says is it is the 'people' of the United States creating the governing document, not to whom it applies. Selecting that bit from the preamble actually underscores my point; it does not say "We the citizens of the United States of America'.

The rights recognized therein are 'endowed by our Creator', whether you believe that creator to be of divine nature or otherwise. They are not endowed by the government, i.e. citizenship.

Tifosi 77Didn't want to put this in a thread but thought you might be interested since you're a plane buff. The military channel is showing episodes of WWI in Color. Part 3 is on WWI airware; being shown at 5pm EST and repeating at 4 AM here. They had some interesting stuff on seaplanes in use during this era.Also showed some trucks and guns they used for anti- aircraft artillery.

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:Really? You would compare regulation of commerce (wheat, pot, and guns) to institutionalization of racism and internment of citizens against their will? I think I see what you are getting at from a libertarian perspective with the restriction of freedoms and such, but telling someone how they can cultivate crops seems a pretty far stretch from those cases you rightfully label as historically misguided.

Yes, I make that comparison. Economic freedom is no less important than personal freedom. A man with no right to the fruit of his own labor is a slave just as surely as if he had chains around his neck.

I suspect this viewpoint results in part from never having been at the wrong end of a bullwhip while in those chains.

President Obama poked fun at himself and the Washington press corps at the Gridiron Club dinner on Saturday night. Here are his best jokes:

— Because of sequester, they cut my tails. My joke writers have been placed on furlough. I know a lot of you reported that no one will feel any immediate impact because of the sequester. Well, you’re about to find out how wrong you are.

— We noticed that some folks couldn’t make it this evening. It's been noted that Bob Woodward sends his regrets, which Gene Sperling predicted.

— Some of you have said that I’m ignoring the Washington press corps — that we're too controlling. You know what, you were right. I was wrong and I want to apologize in a video you can watch exclusively at whitehouse.gov.

— Now I'm sure that you’ve noticed that there's somebody very special in my life who is missing tonight, somebody who has always got my back, stands with me no matter what and gives me hope no matter how dark things seem. So tonight, I want to publicly thank my rock, my foundation — thank you, Nate Silver.

— As I was saying, we face major challenges. March in particular is going to be full of tough decisions. But I want to assure you, I have my top advisors working around the clock. After all, my March Madness bracket isn’t going to fill itself out. And don’t worry — there is an entire team in the situation room as we speak, planning my next golf outing, right now at this moment.

— After a very public mix-up last week, my communications team has provided me with an easy way to distinguish between "Star Trek" and "Star Wars." Spock is what Maureen Dowd calls me. Darth Vader is what John Boehner calls me.

— It took a while, but I’m glad that the Senate finally confirmed my Secretary of Defense. And I have to say, I don’t know what happened to Chuck in those hearings. I know he worked hard, he studied his brief. And I even lent him my presidential debate team to work with him.

— But all these changes to my team are tough to handle, I've got to admit. After nine years, I finally said goodbye to my chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau… Fortunately, he did not take the prompter on his way out. That would have been a problem.

— And in the words of one of my favorite "Star Trek" characters — Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise — “May the force be with you."

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers.

Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:r[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

I'm as much as a anti-war, peace-loving democrat as the next guy, but I'd love to see North Korea aggravate China enough for some military retaliation. Enough with this two-bit country so we can actually focus our military on threats from "real" countries.